/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4535385]

Hi /lit/.
I saw this book being discussed on /sci/ and I'd love to hear your opinions.
Is it truly an illuminating masterpiece?

Even Richard Dawkins was highly impressed and said it changed his life. Here's his review:
>Beautifully written as they were (the elegance of his prose is a distilled blend of honesty and clarity) there was little in Sam Harris's previous books that couldn't have been written by any of his fellow "horsemen" of the "new atheism." This book is different, though every bit as readable as the other two. I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. To my surprise, The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. It should change it for philosophers too. Philosophers of mind have already discovered that they can't duck the study of neuroscience, and the best of them have raised their game as a result. Sam Harris shows that the same should be true of moral philosophers, and it will turn their world exhilaratingly upside down. As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.4535391]

>even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536077]

Morality is a product of biology. Therefore the scientific approach to morality is more objective than a philosophical approach.

[Anonymous No.4536082]

>Even Richard Dawkins
In this moment

[Anonymous No.4536093]

>>4536082
>All I can contribute to discussions involving naturalistic philosophy are internet catchphrases

[Anonymous No.4536098]

>Even Richard Dawkins
stopped reading right there
I tried not to, but it's just a reflex at this point

[Anonymous No.4536141]

>Even
>Richard
>Dawkins
shiggy my diggies all over the place

[Anonymous No.4536139]

>>4536093
>All I can contribute to the worth of this book is Richard Dawkin's opinion

[Anonymous No.4536157]

>>4535391
>>4536082
>>4536098
>>4536141
WTF is wrong with you christfags? Comment on the book or stop shitposting. Nobody needs your ad hominem fallacies. If you're upset because Dawkins disproved your fairy tails, then why don't you go cry in the church instead of shitting up 4chan? All you did was confirming the stereotype of bible humpers being too immature for proper debates.

[Anonymous No.4536158]

>>4536077
The biological outlook doesn't pertain to values, though. Only the "facts of the matter."

[Anonymous No.4536159]

>>4536077
Do you even know what you're saying? What do you think the 'scientific approach' is? Is it like a football team that you are rooting for or do these words signify something?

'Boo philosophy!'

'Yay science!'

Absolutely facile.

[Anonymous No.4536167]

>>4536158
What is there to morality and values that couldn't possibly be explained by science? Name one example. I know you can't.

>>4536159
Science produces tangible results and explains the things we observe. Philosophy dwells in pseudo-intellectualism all the time. I think it's obvious who won.

[Anonymous No.4536171]

>>4536157

Oh, whoopty fucking doo, someone rehashed utilitarianism for the nth time.

[Anonymous No.4536184]

>>4536167
Love: Agape, Philos, Storge, Eros.

[Anonymous No.4536190]

>>4536157
>Even Richard Dawkins
topkek

[Anonymous No.4536198]

>>4536184
>meaningless buzzwords

Love doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.4536201]

>>4536167

>observe

What is there to observe in regard to ethics? By observe, do you mean the sensible qualities of a thing? Do you mean the intellectual inferences made by some subject in regard to behavior? If the former is your meaning, the. What you say makes no sense, as ethics and sensible objects are not of the same kind of thing. If the latter, then you are referring to philosophy.

What do you even understand by the word 'science'? Is it the observation of sensible items and their routine (continuous, commonly occurring, etc.) operations from which natural descriptions, predictions and attempts at falsification may be discerned? Or is it something more vague and quasi-religious? A metaphysical naturalism or materialism?

What do you mean by the words you use?

[Anonymous No.4536218]

>>4536201
I don't need to explain words every preschooler understands. If your verbal development is significantly delayed, that's not my problem. But you might perhaps want to stay out of discussion threads above your level.

[Anonymous No.4536228]

>>4536218
So, you're a troll? You certainly aren't articulate, as you haven't even addressed the issue. In the end, language and thought are a game with few players.

[Anonymous No.4536225]

>>4536201
>What do you mean by the words you use?

Look em up in a dictionary, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.4536238]

>>4536228
Are you mentally retarded? I don't mean that as an insult, just a curiuos question. Have you been diagnosed? I honestly can't see how an adult would have to ask for definitions of well known words. Did you grow up in total isolation? Never talked to a human being IRL?

[Anonymous No.4536244]

>>4536238

>that feelerooski when we can't have discussions on science and philosophy because people in team science like to troll.

[Anonymous No.4536249]

>>4536244
Keep yelling "troll" a few more times. If you yell loud enough, it'll hide your lack of arguments.

[Anonymous No.4536258]

>>4536077
>Morality is a product of biology. Therefore
It isn't.
Therefore nothing.

[Anonymous No.4536259]

>>4536249
>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536261]

>>4536249

>he doesn't even realize he is a titan class faggot

[Anonymous No.4536262]

>>4536249

You are not responding to the same poster. I am still waiting for you to put forward a position because an argument does not consist of mere contradiction.

[Anonymous No.4536266]

>>4536258
All behaviour is determined biologically. Or do you believe in invisible soul dualism and paranormal /x/ mystitism? Determinism is a scientific fact you can't deny.

[Anonymous No.4536273]

>even
>Richard
>d
>a
>w
>k
>i
>n
>s

[Anonymous No.4536275]

>>4536261
>he

>>4536262
There is nothing to argue. Science has made philosophy obsolete. This is a well known fact to everyone who ever read a science book or took a science class.

[Anonymous No.4536277]

>>4536157
>fairy tails
That would be a good title for a gay porn.

[Anonymous No.4536279]

>>4536266
>All behaviour is determined biologically

This behaviour is a lie fed by the body to the mind. Nothing can be qualified as good or bad. There is no right or wrong.

[Anonymous No.4536281]

>>4536266

>he can't comprehend that he is hopelessly lost in the fecal swamp of the cosmic anus.

[Anonymous No.4536282]

>>4536275
>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536285]

>>4536266
>what are psychosomatic illnesses

Also, you seem to have missed that class where they explained what a "fact" is. Or was it a youtube video you skipped?

[Anonymous No.4536286]

>>4536266
i know you're trolling here but it's crazy how many people feel entitled to make completely unscientific metaphysical statements like that then accuse people who don't agree of being unscientific

[Anonymous No.4536287]

>>4536279
The concepts of "good vs bad" or "right vs wrong" are abstractions emerging from simple biological principles like e.g. avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. The evolutionary advantage is self-evident

[Anonymous No.4536292]

>>4536287
Yes, I agree. The whole point of what I'm saying is that these "good/bad" abstractions are null and false because they are merely determined by pain/pleasure seeking and a few social constructs.

[Anonymous No.4536291]

>>4536275

>he identifies as a girl by hiding his dick in prime male-ass.

[Anonymous No.4536300]

>>4536287
biological principles are abstractions emerging from the interaction of subatomic particles so you really have no basis using them in an argument

[Anonymous No.4536302]

>>4536285
>>what are psychosomatic illnesses
A very special case of somatic illnesses caused by the brain. Psychoneuroimmunology, psychoendocrinology etc are researched by methods of biochemistry. Psychiatry is applied neuropharmacology. What else do you think mental illnesses are? Do you believe you are possessed by a demon or something?

>Also, you seem to have missed that class where they explained what a "fact" is. Or was it a youtube video you skipped?
You ain't got shit on me. I watched the youtube video. pic fucking related

[Anonymous No.4536304]

>>4536300
Ooh. Now this is interesting. Elaborate pls

[Anonymous No.4536306]

>>4536157

>christfags
>shitposting
>fairy tails
>shitting up 4chan
>bible humpers

All that in 5 sentences and then you have the gall to call ME immature. Wow.

[Anonymous No.4536308]

>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536314]

>>4536266

>determinism

You're misusing that word.

By biology, I'm sure you mean the commonly occurring, sensible phenomena of living bodies. Now, by behavior I'm sure you mean the activities of rational agents (in the case of humans). So, biology is predicated to sensible objects, whereas behavior is predicated to agents. Observable agents possess biological bodies. Where lies the causation which you have asserted? In fact, it most evidentially appears that agents cause actions by way of their biological bodies and not the other way around. This obvious observation makes the mind-body problem a delicate issue, if one presupposes a separation, such as in your case, by way of epiphenomenalism (if that is your view) which is certainly a kind of dualism.

[Anonymous No.4536316]

>>4536201

Deferring to semantics is one of the hallmark characteristics of a weak argument.

[Anonymous No.4536322]

>>4536302
boy oh boy. Psychosomatic illnesses are caused by what you experience, not by biological determination.

[Anonymous No.4536326]

>>4536286
There is nothing metaphysical in scientific facts.

>>4536291
>no gurls on le internet xD
Go back to /r9k/ or wherever you came from. /lit/ isn't your secret neckbeard virgin club.

>>4536292
Nonetheless they are happening and thus need to be explained by science. Only science can describe and explain them objectively. Philosophy can't.

>>4536300
Your attempted ad absurdum against reductionism failed. You are attacking a straw man. Science is always an objectively better approach to philosophy, irregardless of what level of reduction.

[Anonymous No.4536329]

>>4536275
>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536330]

>>4536302
Also: when and where did you observe determinism?

[Anonymous No.4536334]

>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536335]

>>4536326
>Philosophy can't

Egh.. no. I agree with the extrapolation of pain/pleasure and utility as functions of the biological imperative, but I would highly disagree that these can be used to infer an inbuilt "right/wrong" quality in human behaviour. Anything can be stretched to be "good" if it benefits our survival, or if you were to stretch the imperative to its more minute features, stress reduction, security etc... you get the idea. Anything can be "good/bad" according to this kind of ethical system - therefore it is null. And all ethical systems are null.

[Anonymous No.4536337]

>>4536326
>/lit/ isn't your secret neckbeard virgin
au contraire

[Anonymous No.4536339]

>>4535385
>and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good
How else would we even acquire a good to adhere to that isn't purely personal taste?

[Anonymous No.4536341]

>>4536314
>muh hard problem of consciousness
Just because science hasn't yet explained everything, that doesn't allow you to fill the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

>>4536322
Do you even into neurocience? Psychological trauma manifests itself in neuronal patterns. Mental disorders are in fact biological disorders of the brain.

>>4536330
Everywhere. If you disagree, feel free to falsify it experimentally.

[Anonymous No.4536342]

>>4536326

>objectively
>ontology
>"metaphysics doesn't exist"

Science has become a religious conviction for some people. They genuinely treat it like a cartoonish sports team.

[Anonymous No.4536345]

>>4536339
The pursuit of pain pleasure infers an ultimately wrong sense of good/bad that some have taken into utilitarian ethical systems. Man, don't you know anything about ethics? Even deontology, which doesn't need biology, doesn't function on true "personal taste".

[Anonymous No.4536348]

>>4536167
>What is there to morality and values that couldn't possibly be explained by science?
In his book "Of Interpretation", Christian philosopher Paul Ricoeur discusses the interpretation of human material by Austrian physician Sigismund Freud.
For example, dreams.
Ricoeur notices that Freudian interpretations always go backwards. The reason for the dream always has to be found in the past. Like all positive sciencefags, Freud only looks for the efficient cause.

But other interpretations are possible, interpretations that go forward, looking for what Aristotle would have called the "final cause" (~ the purpose cause).

Dreams are not always the expression of a repressed desire, coming from the body (sexual) and/or the past. A dream can be a vision, a calling, a project.

Freud is a good example of a scientist (studied biology, medicine and specialized in neurology) who ends up saying very stupid dogmatic things precisely because he tried to use "the scientific method", in a field where positive science reaches its limits.

Now give me an example of a philosopher who says "pseudo-intellectual" things about ethics "all the time".

>protip : you don't know what you're talking about. You seem to mistake philosophy for religion.

>>4536184
oh fuck, I just noticed that pic and filename.
mah nigga!

[Anonymous No.4536362]

>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536366]

>>4536335
We are not talking about the validity or correctness of ethical systems, but about their biological origin. This is science.

>>4536348
>Like all positive sciencefags, Freud
>Freud is a good example of a scientist
Hahaha, my sides. Freud wasn't a scientist. He made up a lot of bullshit theories but never tested them experimentally. Even psychologists dismiss him as unscientific.

>interpretations that go forward, looking for what Aristotle would have called the "final cause"
>A dream can be a vision, a calling, a project.
No matter what untestable and anti-scientific /x/ garbage you want to believe, dreams are being researched and explained by neuroscience.

>Now give me an example of a philosopher who says "pseudo-intellectual" things about ethics "all the time".
Aristotle, Kant, literally every single philosopher could serve as an example.

[Anonymous No.4536368]

>>4536341
>Do you even into neurocience
You´re shifting the question, boy. You claimed that "All behaviour is determined biologically". Well no, psychosomatic illnesses are determined experientially. Or you don´t understand what determination means.

And if you think "determinism" can be "experimentally" "proven" or "disproven", you don´t understand those words either.

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

[Anonymous No.4536376]

>>4536366
Then you are wrong.. Kant's deontological system had next to nothing to do with the biological imperative and everything to do with moral relativism and social constructs.

[Anonymous No.4536378]

>>4536238
>Are you mentally retarded? I don't mean that as an insult, just a curiuos question.
<==== mfw

[Anonymous No.4536383]

>>4536366

Negro, the book is about scientifically defining a morality that will maximize human welfare. If we aren't discussing the validation of moral systems using material experiments, what are we discussing?

[Anonymous No.4536391]

>>4536368
>Well no, psychosomatic illnesses are determined experientially.
Experience is a biological process, you dimwitted simpleton.

>>4536376
>Kant's deontological system had next to nothing to do with the biological imperative and everything to do with moral relativism and social constructs.
That's why he is a good example for a philosophy who produces unscientific pseudo-intellectual drivel. Did you even read the post you're replying to? Do you even into context?

>>4536383
We are discussing the science of morality.

[Anonymous No.4536399]

>>4536275
it's a well-known fact that you're a troll who calls its faith "science".

[Anonymous No.4536400]

>>4536391
>pseudo-intellectual

As if you weren't showing your bias hard enough.. biology has no place in ethics. It forms a very loose basis for it but you're entirely overestimating man's capacity to overcome the pleasure/pain drive and the survival drive.

[Anonymous No.4536404]

>>4536400
>overestimating

Underestimating*

[Anonymous No.4536409]

>>4536391
>Experience is a biological process, you dimwitted simpleton.

That doesn't mean it's causally bound to predetermined reactions.

[Anonymous No.4536411]

>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536414]

>>4536400
>biology has no place in ethics
Of course it does. It explains ethics scientifically.

>capacity to overcome the pleasure/pain drive and the survival drive.
I call bullshit. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>4536409
But it is. There is no paranormal or supernatural intervention. If you want to believe in magic, go to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.4536415]

>>4536345
It does, in the sense that it's completely arbitrary without divine authority.

[Anonymous No.4536417]

this thread is absolutely euphoric

[Anonymous No.4536419]

>>4536391

Oh, we are discussing the science of morality. It all makes sense then. I understand now how objectively validating a moral system through experimentation is possible.

I guess I'll just stop believing that property is a moral value of mine when my local priest... I mean, my local scientist tells me that has been disproven.

[Anonymous No.4536421]

>>4536383
>what are we discussing?
I think it´s pretty clear by now that this thread is funposting pure and simple.

>Experience is a biological process
Case in point.

[Anonymous No.4536425]

>>4536414
>It explains ethics scientifically

Go on then, how does it? I thought and researched this same idea years ago with reams and reams of essays, and it came up false, thankfully.

>>4536415
Well in a roundabout way I agree. The only truly ethical are faithful. But there could still be a case made for a utilitarian kind of ethical system.. even if I myself would discount it out of hand knowing the underlying biology that drives it.

[Anonymous No.4536429]

>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536430]

>>4536425
>Go on then, how does it?
Read the book.

>I thought and researched this same idea years ago with reams and reams of essays, and it came up false, thankfully.
You should have read science instead of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4536433]

>>4536414
>There is no paranormal or supernatural intervention.

Why is this needed for it to be spontaneous and emergent?

[Anonymous No.4536441]

>>4536433
Because that would contradict the laws of science.

>emergent
Meaningless and unscientific buzzword. It can be literally replaced by "magic" and nothing changes.

[Anonymous No.4536444]

>>4536430
>read science instead of philosophy

I did. I'm not going to go for the whole "science is great and philosophy is bullshit" argument, I don't care about it. God knows there's enough inductive fallacies epistemological arguments floating around to render both sides at best equally disputable.

Obviously I researched it as a scientific thing because the whole philosophy hinges on the biology of the human body.

[Anonymous No.4536452]

>>4536441
>Meaningless and unscientific buzzword
How much longer are going to stay?

You know, you really are fun to be around :)

[Anonymous No.4536467]

>>4536441
It means it comes ex nihilo it's not meaningless.

[Anonymous No.4536481]

>>4536452
>How much longer are going to stay?
Not very long. I have science to do.

>You know, you really are fun to be around :)
I know.

>>4536467
No, that's not what it means. Look it up in a dictionary, dunce.

[Anonymous No.4536498]

>>4536441
>Meaningless and unscientific buzzword. It can be literally replaced by "magic" and nothing changes.

Oh, so because 2+2=5 you get scared. I thought scientists were smart. Can't you think without your calculators?

[Anonymous No.4536499]

>>4535385
Lol, no.

[Anonymous No.4536502]

>>4536425
>Well in a roundabout way I agree. The only truly ethical are faithful. But there could still be a case made for a utilitarian kind of ethical system.. even if I myself would discount it out of hand knowing the underlying biology that drives it.
How would that argument work?

[Anonymous No.4536508]

>>4536498

[Anonymous No.4536513]

>>4536508
So you would rather lie, to make reality conform to your method?

[Anonymous No.4536518]

>>4536513
Science never lies. Science is objective truth.

[Anonymous No.4536522]

>>4536518
Also when it misses the mark?

[Anonymous No.4536524]

>>4536518

[Anonymous No.4536528]

>>4536522
>>4536524
What happened? Why did your brain go to mush?

[Anonymous No.4536534]

>>4536498

>Oh, so because 2+2=5 you get scared.

This happens all the time, especially amongst others in our generation.

They cling to empiricism as the only possible means of discovery because abstraction scares them. You can always pick out those who have a genuine veneration for scientific discovery and those who fetishize empiricism as a desperate attempt to try and lord power over the natural order.

Most "euphoric" types (if you'll pardon the trite meme) are just afraid of the raw possibility of abstraction. And out of their nervousness they become impetuous children, thinking that theirs is the only working playbook.

[Anonymous No.4536531]

>>4536502
Pain and pleasure are utilitarian sequences, but are ultimately just messages the body sends the mind to continue the survival imperative. Therefore all pains/pleasures are effectively lies to keep the survival imperative going.

[Anonymous No.4536533]

>>4536266
6th reply, but I'm the anon you replied to. I'm not not him.
I'm a monist and determinist, thank you very much.

>All behaviour is determined biologically.
that's not what you said. You said "Morality is a product of biology."
Anyway.
I think all behavior is determined by
- the body
- the mind
- other people
- parents and education (sometimes religious education), family
- school
- social structures
- political structures
- economic structures
- the structure called "character" (see characterology (Reich, Horney...)), and the person's history and memory, his sense of identity and self.
- history of mankind and civilization
- culture (for example, the cannibalism behavior doesn't seem to be determined by biology, as different people with the same biology either find it good, or atrocious. Same thing for the prohibition of incest, which is not determined by biology, and better studied by anthropology)

see?
I don't claim that morality is whispered to us by a supernatural being, or the sole product of a choice by the "free will".
But to say that morality is the product of biology seems a bit simplistic.

I think you're a victim of fashion entertained by the pharmaceutical companies, who make a lot of money selling meds for the brain, and thus need to convince everyone that every behaviour is determined by biology. They have the money needed to fund 1000 times more research than ethicians and sociologists (large studies that "proved", big neuro-imagery that "proved"...), and they have the means to corrupt your college teachers in which you seem to have a blind faith.

See, *you* are the religionfag trying to impose a dominant discourse with one-liners and the criterion of obviousness.
>"We all know..."
yes, because pharm labs are very, very rich. Because they isolate us, pacify us with their drugs.
Because we are too lazy to stand up and affirm "I'm a human being, goddammit!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ7ZL6ul71k
anonymous song about nasonex and cerebrex and all the shit they're selling us

[Anonymous No.4536536]

>>4536498
>Oh, so because 2+2=5 you get scared

Nah, I'm a physicist. I'm just gonna assume the existence of a "dark" number to balance my equation.

[Anonymous No.4536538]

>>4536157
you dont have to be a christian to not like richard dawkins, even richard dawkins knows richar dawkins is a loser

[Anonymous No.4536543]

>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536544]

>>4536533
>- the body
>- the mind

Fuck off dualist., The "mind" is part of the body, not a separate entity.

[Anonymous No.4536551]

>>4536538

[Anonymous No.4536560]

>>4536538

>even richard dawkins knows richar dawkins is a loser

lol'd

[Anonymous No.4536568]

>>4536536
So you really do 'force' reality to conform to your model.

[Anonymous No.4536576]

>>4536568
How do you think string theory works?

[Anonymous No.4536583]

>>4536366
>Hahaha, my sides. Freud wasn't a scientist.
This is the dominant discourse pushed by sciencefags. Freud said a lot of BS, so let's disown him. Let's say he was a philosopher, because philosophers are those who say stupid things without evidence.

Now question :
Was Freud...
- a humanities fag who specialized in philosophy, then created a new philosophy called "philosynthesis"
- or a medicine doctor who studied biology and specialized in neurology, then created a "science" called "psychoanalysis"

Freud is the perfect example that sciencefags can produce at least as much BS as philosophers, ethicians and anthropologists, except it's guaranteed true because muh experiments.
Freud *never* disowned the scientific method, and still at the end of his life, he continued to claim that the "death wish" was rooted in biology.

Besides, ethicians are not against experimentation, far from it. Only problem is they don't have as much money as neurofags, who are showered with fundings anytime they want to conduct an experiment, because pharm labs know that the result of the experiments will always be the same : "it was biology" (=yes, it was the chemicals in the brain), meaning new meds and more money.

[Anonymous No.4536602]

>>4536583
Freud was not a scientist. He did not apply the scientific method. Psychoanalysis is outdated pseudoscience, a flawed philosophical conjecture at best.

>a medicine doctor who studied biology and specialized in neurology
Are you seirously saying doctors are scientists? My lels are in orbit. Medicine is a service, not a science. Doctors get paid for having mamorized a huge amount of terminology and phenomena. They only need to recognize them, they don't need to understand, let alone research the scientific mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.4536607]

>>4536419
we should definitely elect a neuroscientist president.
he would give every one the etical drugs they need to have a good ethical brain, and all the problems would be solved.
no more left/right debate, no more consequentialism/deontologism
every solutions would be guaranteed efficient.
brave new world...

[Anonymous No.4536609]

>>4536583
for a second i thought your post said "Freud is the perfect example that sciencefags can produce at least as much BS as philosophers, Ethiopians, and anthropologists" and i was like damn this is a good post

[Anonymous No.4536612]

>>4536602
you know nothing about psychoanalysis.

[Anonymous No.4536616]

>I saw this book being discussed on /sci/ and I'd love to hear your opinions.
>Even Richard Dawkins was highly impressed and said it changed his life.
>I'd love
>Even Richard Dawkins
>on /sci/
>love to hear your opinions
>love
>it changed his life
>this book being discussed on /sci/
>was highly impressed and said it changed his life
>was highly
>Dawkins

>mfw

[Anonymous No.4536618]

>>4536612
I certainly know more about it than you. Please contain your butthurt.

[Anonymous No.4536619]

>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4536620]

>>4536607
We already have heroine, just not enough of it.

[Anonymous No.4536649]

So instead of discussing the salient points of the book you instead choose to introduce it in one of the most arrogant and inflammatory ways to /lit/ - what the hell were you thinking?

Why couldn't you have given your own coherent opinion on the book instead of bringing in a cmpletely irrelevant

>Richard Dawkins thinks so and so

That's irrelevant, so too that /sci/ had a nice little intellectual wank over it and almost makes me inclined to think this was done purposefully as bait.

Can we try to redeem this thread?

What was YOUR opinions on it; what were the major points it raises?

[Anonymous No.4536659]

Stoicism (not just the ethics but also the metaphysics, etc.) is still completely compatible with modern science. The only real change that has to be made is moving the emotional center from the chest to the brain.

Anyone care to argue?

[Anonymous No.4536666]

>>4536602
>>4536612
Or about medicine, for that matter.

[Anonymous No.4536689]

>>4536544
>>- the body
>>- the mind
>Fuck off dualist. The "mind" is part of the body, not a separate entity.

wut? Who said they were separate entities?
I'm fully monist and fully spinozist on this : body and mind are two POV on the same substance.

your idea that the mind is part of the body seems simplistic to me. I could say "fuck off, materialist!"

After much thought on Descartes' dualism, Spinoza explains that the body is the mind, and that the mind is the body. Just seen from a different POV.

so my claim remains that behaviour is determined by :
- the body
- the mind
- etc

if you think that an idea can never determine a behavior, then you have never seen a mollah needing only two weeks to send a depressed young bloke to blow himself in Kabul.
Ideas are very powerful and often determine us.
Precisely now, we're fighting with ideas, for ideas. We want dominance.

But ideas are just images of what happens in the body.
And the body is just another way of seeing the mind.

btw, and I think I'll go to bed, I don't deny that sciencefags do good work. If philosophers really despised them, they wouldn't read them, and wouldn't update their theories constantly after the new results of empirical research.

[Anonymous No.4536707]

>>4536689
Nonreductive materialism isn't contradictory. Anon seems to be suggesting that the mind is in all ways equivalent to the brain. The brain is more than the mind in the same way that an ecosystem is more than a bunch of different animals and plants.

A zoo is different from an ecosystem and a dead brain is different from a mind. The mind/ecosystem emerges from the processes.

[Anonymous No.4536708]

>>4536602
One of the first research papers from Freud was about the many applications of cocaine for brain disorders.
He also worked on small animals, rats or something.

[Anonymous No.4536716]

>>4536707
Sorry, *nonreductive physicalism

[Anonymous No.4536718]

>>4536609
haha, no, but I did try to be funny.

[Anonymous No.4536722]

>>4536649
quality post.
+1 reputation point.
are you a mod?

[Anonymous No.4536761]

>"Social morality exists to sustain cooperative social relationships, and morality can be objectively evaluated by that standard."

This basically summaries his views.

[Anonymous No.4536765]

>>4536707
>>4536716
I smell compatibilism!

(sorry for the one-liner, I'm going to bed, thread seems to be finished anyway)

[Anonymous No.4538285]

>>4536689
>implying substance dualism is the only dualism

Your lack of education is showing and your beliefs are still dualistic.

[Anonymous No.4538289]

I'm sick of the religon argument, it was over years ago. Eeryone took sides, it doesn't need to be an ongoing thing.

[Anonymous No.4538329]

So, pleasure is good and pain is bad, right?

[Anonymous No.4538375]

>>4538329
Pain is fun to watch.

[Anonymous No.4538423]

>>4536649
>So instead of discussing the salient points of the book you instead choose to introduce it in one of the most arrogant and inflammatory ways to /lit/ - what the hell were you thinking?

Well, actually, Richard Dawkin's opinion is imminently germane to the subject of our current discourses about this publication.

[Anonymous No.4538463]

If scientists have to test everything does that mean that the act of sex is unscientific?

[Anonymous No.4538479]

>Guaranteed replies: The Book

[Anonymous No.4539194]

>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4540915]

>>4538463
>2014
>still believing in sex

I bet you also believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and god.

[Anonymous No.4541075]

Are people on /sci/ really this retarded or are these some kind of bad apples? Too often I see these idiotic viewpoints that can only be described at scientism.

[Anonymous No.4541099]

>>4536238
just define them and quit bitching

[Anonymous No.4541104]

>Philosophers of mind have already discovered that they can't duck the study of neuroscience, and the best of them have raised their game as a result.

i studied philosophy of mind and it is the most useless, solipsistic "philosophy" as a result of its emphasis on neuroscience. the only question they care about is "what is a mind", rather than "what can a mind do, what can it be, how can moral culpability be attached to it, etc".

[Anonymous No.4541115]

>>4536518
>2014
>Objective being thrown about alongside a denial of metaphysics

[Anonymous No.4541174]

>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4541975]

>>4541075
>scientism

No such thing exists. "Scientism" is a pejorative buzzword only used by religitards and philosophags who want to insult science because they can't accept that science disproved their fairy tails. Science works. Fucking deal with it.

[Anonymous No.4542031]

>>4541975
>LALALALALAALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU

[Anonymous No.4542041]

There is nothing more intellectually juvenile and dishonest than fucking scientism.

[Anonymous No.4542076]

>Even Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.4542090]

Richard Dawkins, even. <

[Anonymous No.4542152]

>>4536326
The next time you decide to speak, please take care to do so either with great care and precision or not at all.

[Anonymous No.4542326]

>>4536341
>If you disagree, feel free to falsify it experimentally.
double slit experiment

[Anonymous No.4542431]

>>4542031
>typical philosotard "argument"

>>4542041
>ad hominem and factually wrong
There is something more puerile and immature than scientism. You wanna know what? Philosophers denying the truth of science.

>>4542152
>using "care" twice in the same sentence
>asking others to put more thought into they're posts
lol @ the irony

>>4542326
Do you even know what that is? I don't think you're qualified to talk about quantum mechanics.